You are correct. "It's for the kids" just don't get it any more. I don't like spending tax dollars when there is no improvement. Want to know where some of those dollars went here? The admin thought it would be great to have a fancy new sign out in front of their building instead of spending that money to improve one of the schools. It seems that this district asks for a mil levy increase every year. I keep voting no every year, my property taxes are high enough and my home is nowhere near what Boulder says it is. Okay off the soap box.

I am not a conservative and I do not support Common Core. The reason I don't support it is because I am living the aftermath of what happens when children are given a curriculum which teaches to the PARCC test.

Your journalists need to get thier facts straight before painting a one size fits all picture of the opponents of this mess we call our education system.

The BOE and many elected officials are starting to get the message that we parents, liberal and conservative alike, will not stand to have our child's education diminished by people who have $$$ in their eyes rather than our children's best interests at heart. It is not a business, it is our future.

Blue Nation wrote:Democrats don't have that problem on a national level. In fact democrats have the opposite problem: Too many differing opinions and competing ideas that give the impression of ideological confusion. That is really only the manifestation of healthy debate and an ongoing exchange of ideas. The GOP hasn't had that for decades.

I think that's because, unlike the right, the left doesn't tend to harbor authoritarians. The right tends to love structure and dislike ambiguity.

This also explains why the left isn't represented very well on talk radio and shout shows on television - the left doesn't want to have their opinion shouted at them, they'll form it themselves, thank you very much.

You're right - the only problem is that liberals actually believe that their opinion is always "fact" and they are always "right" ... they can't stand having healthy debate as evidenced by their own intolerance despite touting a mantra of tolerance. Their hypocrisy is ironic.

You should look up the definition of intolerance and hypocrisy. You're not using either correctly.

I most certainly am ... and you can refer to me by my FIRST name, which is Doctor ... get educated.

Blue Nation wrote:Democrats don't have that problem on a national level. In fact democrats have the opposite problem: Too many differing opinions and competing ideas that give the impression of ideological confusion. That is really only the manifestation of healthy debate and an ongoing exchange of ideas. The GOP hasn't had that for decades.

I think that's because, unlike the right, the left doesn't tend to harbor authoritarians. The right tends to love structure and dislike ambiguity.

This also explains why the left isn't represented very well on talk radio and shout shows on television - the left doesn't want to have their opinion shouted at them, they'll form it themselves, thank you very much.

You're right - the only problem is that liberals actually believe that their opinion is always "fact" and they are always "right" ... they can't stand having healthy debate as evidenced by their own intolerance despite touting a mantra of tolerance. Their hypocrisy is ironic.

You should look up the definition of intolerance and hypocrisy. You're not using either correctly.

I most certainly am ... and you can refer to me by my FIRST name, which is Doctor ... get educated.

I seriously doubt you have a doctorate or PhD of any kind. Your commentary shows no evidence of it. It's easy to make outlandish claims anonymously.

There are ideological puritans on the Left and Right who are intolerant of differing opinions, but open debate on the Right is far less likely to be tolerated. When is the last time you've heard an honest and rational discussion of taxes, defense spending, abortion, gun control, gay rights, public education, global warming or the minimum wage within the GOP? Such discussions are virtually impossible in the Republican party today.

Blue Nation wrote:Democrats don't have that problem on a national level. In fact democrats have the opposite problem: Too many differing opinions and competing ideas that give the impression of ideological confusion. That is really only the manifestation of healthy debate and an ongoing exchange of ideas. The GOP hasn't had that for decades.

I think that's because, unlike the right, the left doesn't tend to harbor authoritarians. The right tends to love structure and dislike ambiguity.

This also explains why the left isn't represented very well on talk radio and shout shows on television - the left doesn't want to have their opinion shouted at them, they'll form it themselves, thank you very much.

You're right - the only problem is that liberals actually believe that their opinion is always "fact" and they are always "right" ... they can't stand having healthy debate as evidenced by their own intolerance despite touting a mantra of tolerance. Their hypocrisy is ironic.

You should look up the definition of intolerance and hypocrisy. You're not using either correctly.

I most certainly am ... and you can refer to me by my FIRST name, which is Doctor ... get educated.

This is an excellent example of problems with improving the educational system by dealing with labels rather than baseline issues. It is also a good example of how the educational system tends to produce convergent conformist thinking rather than divergent creative thinking. While I have concerns about educational leadership and knowledge of a professional basketball player with a degree in sociology or a philosophy major with limited teaching experience and an advanced degree in educational policy politics (convergent thinking in the wrong direction) they may have expanded their knowledge bases beyond those areas to bring creative solutions to the table their policy initiatives indicated they have not.

On the other hand we see an example the autocratic nature of those who fail to challenge assumptions of the system and rely on their nespotic relationships as determined by their last names such as phud, mud, or dud.

kelsey wrote:Clearly many of the commenters have not bothered to look at the common core standards. And the ones that have are against them because they themselves would never have passed them. For those that believe they are being top down driven by the federal gov't haven't even bothered to read about them and where they originated either.

As for the teacher that is quitting. Fine. She clearly shouldn't be teaching if she can't handles what is in the common core anyway.

Agreed. The Common Core only defines common, minimal objectives in education. It does not define how those objectives are best achieved in any state or school district; that is left to local control. The opponents of Common Core appear to be the usual offenders who oppose all public education generally because they prefer a particular religious mythology to actual science, or they prefer a particular fictional historical narrative, or they have strangely paranoid attitudes toward the federal government.

Blue Nation wrote: The Common Core only defines common, minimal objectives in education. It does not define how those objectives are best achieved in any state or school district; that is left to local control. The opponents of Common Core appear to be the usual offenders who oppose all public education generally because they prefer a particular religious mythology to actual science, or they prefer a particular fictional historical narrative, or they have strangely paranoid attitudes toward the federal government.

You need to be careful in labeling opponents to the CC. There are problems even within the current educational structure. There are questions about whether they are really the correct standards to have in both content and method. Another issue is the expense in terms of time and money. In Colorado the estimates are in the range of $200-$300 million for materials and training. If we use the $200 million for 50 states that is $10 billion for the country at a very conservative estimate for what are a new set minimum standards. They do nothing to help students excel and they do not address in most cases the causes of the failure to reach the standard. They are an attempt to maintain the current educational structure which is close to the limit of what can be obtained using this system.

Here's some baseline education standards for you.1. The federal government should not be involved in education at all. Education is a state issue and should be left up to the individual states.2. The states that do the best job in education will produce the leaders of the future and those who fail will eventually get the message and make the right changes. 3. Common core is a failure waiting to happen and the states that implement it will fail at managing education.

swatson839 wrote:Here's some baseline education standards for you.1. The federal government should not be involved in education at all. Education is a state issue and should be left up to the individual states.2. The states that do the best job in education will produce the leaders of the future and those who fail will eventually get the message and make the right changes. 3. Common core is a failure waiting to happen and the states that implement it will fail at managing education.

I am not opposed to the federal government having an involvement in education, but do believe that are doing it all wrong and need to rethink what they are doing. I think that the federal government should be involved in standardization and certification but not with such programs as CC.

It was at least 40 years ago I noticed the federal government was pushing nice sounding, but ineffective and therefore costly programs. By using a carrot and stick approach CC is mandated if federal funds are wanted. Because there are already so many federal programs that are only partially funded by the federal government there is an addiction to those funds by states and districts so untangling the mess will be difficult.Undoing a bureaucracy or established institutional policies is not easy, so I think the future of education will be determined by college drop outs or at least math and engineering types who put thought processes above form.

swatson839 wrote:Here's some baseline education standards for you.1. The federal government should not be involved in education at all. Education is a state issue and should be left up to the individual states.2. The states that do the best job in education will produce the leaders of the future and those who fail will eventually get the message and make the right changes. 3. Common core is a failure waiting to happen and the states that implement it will fail at managing education.

I am not opposed to the federal government having an involvement in education, but do believe that are doing it all wrong and need to rethink what they are doing. I think that the federal government should be involved in standardization and certification but not with such programs as CC.

It was at least 40 years ago I noticed the federal government was pushing nice sounding, but ineffective and therefore costly programs. By using a carrot and stick approach CC is mandated if federal funds are wanted. Because there are already so many federal programs that are only partially funded by the federal government there is an addiction to those funds by states and districts so untangling the mess will be difficult.Undoing a bureaucracy or established institutional policies is not easy, so I think the future of education will be determined by college drop outs or at least math and engineering types who put thought processes above form.

The leaders and most employable will be the home schooled and college dropouts. Without logic and reason there can be no success.

Blue Nation wrote:Democrats don't have that problem on a national level. In fact democrats have the opposite problem: Too many differing opinions and competing ideas that give the impression of ideological confusion. That is really only the manifestation of healthy debate and an ongoing exchange of ideas. The GOP hasn't had that for decades.

I think that's because, unlike the right, the left doesn't tend to harbor authoritarians. The right tends to love structure and dislike ambiguity.

This also explains why the left isn't represented very well on talk radio and shout shows on television - the left doesn't want to have their opinion shouted at them, they'll form it themselves, thank you very much.

You're right - the only problem is that liberals actually believe that their opinion is always "fact" and they are always "right" ... they can't stand having healthy debate as evidenced by their own intolerance despite touting a mantra of tolerance. Their hypocrisy is ironic.

You should look up the definition of intolerance and hypocrisy. You're not using either correctly.

I most certainly am ... and you can refer to me by my FIRST name, which is Doctor ... get educated.

You are still not using them correctly.

A lie will circle the globe before the truth has the chance to put its boots on. Terry Pratchett.

If you plan on winning based on the other team's best player getting hurt, and not on your team's abilities, you don't deserve to win anything.

swatson839 wrote:Here's some baseline education standards for you.1. The federal government should not be involved in education at all. Education is a state issue and should be left up to the individual states.2. The states that do the best job in education will produce the leaders of the future and those who fail will eventually get the message and make the right changes. 3. Common core is a failure waiting to happen and the states that implement it will fail at managing education.

I am not opposed to the federal government having an involvement in education, but do believe that are doing it all wrong and need to rethink what they are doing. I think that the federal government should be involved in standardization and certification but not with such programs as CC.

It was at least 40 years ago I noticed the federal government was pushing nice sounding, but ineffective and therefore costly programs. By using a carrot and stick approach CC is mandated if federal funds are wanted. Because there are already so many federal programs that are only partially funded by the federal government there is an addiction to those funds by states and districts so untangling the mess will be difficult.Undoing a bureaucracy or established institutional policies is not easy, so I think the future of education will be determined by college drop outs or at least math and engineering types who put thought processes above form.

Consilience,By allowing the government the ability to implement standardization then you reinforce the bureacracy not undermine it.

We have a school board at every school district and a Department of Education in every state. Why can we not empower each of these entities to determine and enforce the standards? One size does not fit all.

I agree with that addiction. There will be no reduction in that addiction until the feds get out of the K-12 business. We have state and local governments for a reason, lets let them do their jobs or quit paying for 3 layers of bureacarcy.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."Senator Obama

Michael O wrote:By allowing the government the ability to implement standardization then you reinforce the bureacracy not undermine it.

We have a school board at every school district and a Department of Education in every state. Why can we not empower each of these entities to determine and enforce the standards? One size does not fit all.

I agree with that addiction. There will be no reduction in that addiction until the feds get out of the K-12 business. We have state and local governments for a reason, lets let them do their jobs or quit paying for 3 layers of bureacarcy.

It would be nice if the federal government would wake up and say we have been wrong and must do things differently, but that is improbable. If states want freedom from federal mandates they must take responsibility to reject the carrot of a grant before they are faced with the stick of loss of most funding. Had the majority of states not attempted to get grants for CC or rejected the measure likes SB191 the federal government would have difficulty in cutting the funding to many states. The state passed these measures and handed them as unfunded mandates to the districts that must comply or lose state funding.As to the standards problem it is useful to know what someone does in one state or place when they then move to another place as well as in a school. Having a common set of educational objectives to identify progress has many advantages. It would be compatible with if not necessary for individualized learning.

Standards such as CC that are compliance in nature create problems. A standard that says you must jump so high or else you will lose your funding creates problems.

Michael O wrote:By allowing the government the ability to implement standardization then you reinforce the bureacracy not undermine it.

We have a school board at every school district and a Department of Education in every state. Why can we not empower each of these entities to determine and enforce the standards? One size does not fit all.

I agree with that addiction. There will be no reduction in that addiction until the feds get out of the K-12 business. We have state and local governments for a reason, lets let them do their jobs or quit paying for 3 layers of bureacarcy.

It would be nice if the federal government would wake up and say we have been wrong and must do things differently, but that is improbable. If states want freedom from federal mandates they must take responsibility to reject the carrot of a grant before they are faced with the stick of loss of most funding. Had the majority of states not attempted to get grants for CC or rejected the measure likes SB191 the federal government would have difficulty in cutting the funding to many states. The state passed these measures and handed them as unfunded mandates to the districts that must comply or lose state funding.As to the standards problem it is useful to know what someone does in one state or place when they then move to another place as well as in a school. Having a common set of educational objectives to identify progress has many advantages. It would be compatible with if not necessary for individualized learning.

Standards such as CC that are compliance in nature create problems. A standard that says you must jump so high or else you will lose your funding creates problems.

Its a catch-22. If states refuse to take the carrot their constientuients give the heat for turning down the "free money" Look at the states that took heat for not taking medicare increases because the states couldn't afford the required matching dollars.

There are too many voters that see the feds as the sugar daddy and want those carrots. Voters are like teenagers and the polticians are like parents who can only be in charge if the spoiled teens are happy. "Oh you want ice cream for dinner? That seems reasonable."

And often what happens is those doing stupid people tricks to win the carrot, often find the carrot ends up costing more than they got in the first place.

Whether its for city police, county sherrifs, School funding etc. If it isn't a federal function, quit dangling the carrots. Its a poor way to administrate a government.

"I'm not in charge, but I'll give you this money if you let me be!!!" So we take the carrot that really came from us in the first place. Its madness if you ask me.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."Senator Obama

Blue Nation wrote:Democrats don't have that problem on a national level. In fact democrats have the opposite problem: Too many differing opinions and competing ideas that give the impression of ideological confusion. That is really only the manifestation of healthy debate and an ongoing exchange of ideas. The GOP hasn't had that for decades.

I think that's because, unlike the right, the left doesn't tend to harbor authoritarians. The right tends to love structure and dislike ambiguity.

This also explains why the left isn't represented very well on talk radio and shout shows on television - the left doesn't want to have their opinion shouted at them, they'll form it themselves, thank you very much.

You're right - the only problem is that liberals actually believe that their opinion is always "fact" and they are always "right" ... they can't stand having healthy debate as evidenced by their own intolerance despite touting a mantra of tolerance. Their hypocrisy is ironic.

You should look up the definition of intolerance and hypocrisy. You're not using either correctly.

I most certainly am ... and you can refer to me by my FIRST name, which is Doctor ... get educated.

I seriously doubt you have a doctorate or PhD of any kind. Your commentary shows no evidence of it. It's easy to make outlandish claims anonymously.

There are ideological puritans on the Left and Right who are intolerant of differing opinions, but open debate on the Right is far less likely to be tolerated. When is the last time you've heard an honest and rational discussion of taxes, defense spending, abortion, gun control, gay rights, public education, global warming or the minimum wage within the GOP? Such discussions are virtually impossible in the Republican party today.

I do have my Doctorate - you, on the other hand, must resort to unsupported attacks on those who have the mind and intelligence to challenge you with facts rather than vile rhetoric.

csujake wrote:You should look up the definition of intolerance and hypocrisy. You're not using either correctly.

I most certainly am ... and you can refer to me by my FIRST name, which is Doctor ... get educated.

I seriously doubt you have a doctorate or PhD of any kind. Your commentary shows no evidence of it. It's easy to make outlandish claims anonymously.

There are ideological puritans on the Left and Right who are intolerant of differing opinions, but open debate on the Right is far less likely to be tolerated. When is the last time you've heard an honest and rational discussion of taxes, defense spending, abortion, gun control, gay rights, public education, global warming or the minimum wage within the GOP? Such discussions are virtually impossible in the Republican party today.

I do have my Doctorate - you, on the other hand, must resort to unsupported attacks on those who have the mind and intelligence to challenge you with facts rather than vile rhetoric.

I have not made any unsupported attack. You have made an unsupported claim that I don't believe, not that it matters much.